The Great Seduction Response

1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? Use examples from the web in the form of links.

Keen describes democratized media as “the great seduction,” or the empty promise of the democratized media. He says what the “Web 2.0 is really delivering us is superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, and shrill opinions rather than considered judgments.”  His main issue with this trend is that instead of the world becoming more cultured from having access to music like the Brandenburg Concertos, people were becoming more narcissistic and only seemed interested in becoming self-made.  In other words Keen dislikes democratized media because of the fact that everyone is simultaneously broadcasting themselves, but nobody was listening to anyone else. Here is a good example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghs0nNF1YZ4

2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?

Both Keen and Rushkoff’s views of social media are great examples of the two opposite extremes of the views on “Web 2.0.”  Keen’s view is the negative or the opposing view.  He sees social media as a form of media that is corrupting society. He thinks that social media is making individuals increasingly narcissistic.  Keen dislikes democratized media because of the fact that everyone is simultaneously broadcasting themselves, but nobody was listening to anyone else.  Douglas Rushkoff is a cyber advocate; he wants to help people embrace, understand, enjoy, and generally become less afraid of technology so that future generations can benefit from it.  He believes that the internet is not going to change society but it is going to amplify it, and magnify existing trends.  I agree with Rushkoff’s views of social media; it is a way to enhance our future tenfold if we use it properly. 

My Response

My partner is Ashley Casiano.

Posts not showing up...so here are my comments.

Ashley Casiano:

            I enjoyed reading this post, and I agreed with you as well. You wrote, “If people have no boundaries, and anyone can connect to anyone problems are bound to occur.” I too wrote a section of my post about this very topic.

            I wrote that social networking sites can provide a constant reassurance that you are listened to, recognized, and important. Instead the face-to-face, real life conversation, which is far more unpredictable and stressful than the computer mediated conversation, happens in real time; there is no opportunity to think up witty responses, a real conversation exposes your tone of voice, your body language, and probably even your emitted pheromones. (Which are molecules that transmit mainly sexual and social messages that others perceive unconsciously.) Could you imagine how awkward our world would be if every conversation we ever had online was held face to face?

            I enjoyed your take on this question.  You had said that people don’t realize almost thirty five percent of arguments online are because of misinterpretations. Because of the fact that people are not able to hear how the person may be saying something, or because they do not know if certain things are meant to be jokes many problems arise from this.  Some problems may occur because of a conflict of interests.  If someone sees something on someone else’s facebook or twitter that they do not agree with, for example, religious beliefs or even statuses, people may say things may then lead to an argument. When people post things such as an inside joke or things with significant special meanings on social networking sites other “outsiders” could definitely take it to mean something incredibly offensive. 

Janae Myers:

I agreed with your comment about how there are people who are disgraced by the way technology can be used and the impacts it has on people, while others are astonished at how it benefits society.  Those who think it is hurting our generation are not taking into account what we are gaining. They are focusing solely on the negative aspects of the change rather than the innovative tools we are gaining. 

 Megan Walsh:

Just as I had mentioned on Janae’s post, those people who think social networking is hurting our generation are not taking into account what we are gaining from the experience. They are focusing solely on the negative aspects of the change rather than the innovative tools we are gaining. Just because we do not sit and read a novel a day does not mean we are not competent, intelligent, hard working, success driven people. We just act, think, work, and thrive in new and different ways.

Brendan Cuddihy:

When I think about bullying I think of the big kid in the class sitting in the back, spitting spit balls at a small kid in the front. I like that you brought up the topic of cyber bullying. This opens a whole new era of bullying that previous generations did not even have to consider. I also touched on this topic in my paper. I talked about the Rutgers incident and how these types of events are spinning out of control. 

Stephanie Robinett     http://stephrobinett.blogspot.com/2010/10/digital-nation-final-paper.html

Digital Nation FINAL Paper

              Social network sites are putting attention span in jeopardy.  If the young brain is exposed from the beginning to a world of fast action and reaction, of instant screen images flashing up with the press of a key, such rapid interchange might familiarize the brain to operate over such timescales.  Sites such as Facebook and Twitter are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centered.  Perhaps when in the real world such responses are not immediately helpful, we will see such behaviors in children and young teens and call them attention-deficit disorder.  Baroness Greenfield, an Oxford University Neuroscientist and Director of the Royal Institution, believes repeated exposure could effectively “rewire” the brain.  She says, “My fear is that these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.” She followed with, “It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations.”  The pure impulse of reliable and almost immediate reward is being linked to similar chemical systems in the brain that may also play a part in drug addiction. We definitely should not underestimate the delight of interacting with a screen when we puzzle over why it seems so appealing to us.   

            Social networking sites can provide a constant reassurance that you are listened to, recognized, and important. Instead the face-to-face, real life conversation, which is far more unpredictable and stressful than the computer mediated conversation, happens in real time; there is no opportunity to think up witty responses, a real conversation exposes your tone of voice, your body language, and probably even your emitted pheromones, which are molecules that transmit mainly sexual and social messages that others perceive unconsciously.  

            Communication is one of the most important devices we have as humans, but it is the way we communicate dictates how relationships form.  Picture this scenario: you just meet a potential friend/love interest for the first time and then you exchange numbers. Do you text them next or talk on the phone?  Most people I know, including myself, decide to text the person first. Then, texting all of the time starts to become a replacement for phone conversations; since texting is more versatile in timing and can be sent quickly.  However, if you don’t know someone well enough, a long texting conversation can become the kiss of death.  For instance, if you’re flirting over text, but you have not actually flirted in person yet, it is tremendously awkward to see the person again when you have only revealed your true feelings electronically.  The same is true with Facebook.  It is like inviting someone into your home when you become “friends” because they can see what you’ve said to other people and vice versa.  All of your information is there for others to see, even the embarrassing video of you singing a popular 90’s tune on your guitar.  If you do not get to know someone’s interests from them, you are not really getting to know them; you are just getting to know the social networking site’s version of the real person.

            Now, the next question we need to ask ourselves is how are we to explain some of the collective anger that seems to be unleashed online; and is it a result of the same anger characterizing much of our society's discourse, or is it the cause?

            The Internet community offers users a number of outlets to express their personal opinions and thoughts, from chat rooms to message forums to social networking sites.  Many of these interactive web pages encourage or even require participants to remain anonymous or create alternative identities.  The anonymity of the Internet may provide a level of privacy for users in the real world, but it can also enable certain participants to become much more aggressive or mean spirited than they would be without the promise of anonymity.  To this effect, the Internet can definitely encourage others to ignore Internet etiquette and post malicious or deliberately provocative messages for the sole purpose of hurting other posters or chat room participants.  For example, the Twitter post that outted the Rutgers student.  These mean spirited or blatantly offensive Internet users are known as trolls in the Web community, and there have even been jobs assigned to website mediators who spend much of their time online deleting offensive messages and suspending the accounts of those who leave them.  Besides, weather the effects of something as simple as a post online are intended or unintended our connectedness means that someone, somewhere will be affected.